Leonid Zhmud The Origin of the History of Science in Classical Antiquity

op. cit., 100), which re-
ferred to doxography, rather than to the history of science.

---

5. Eudemus’ history of science
149
renowned as a geometer; it is only in a historical context that such a figure could
have been mentioned.
It would not be surprising if one and the same mathematician, e.g. Hippo-
crates, appeared to be mentioned by Eudemus in connection with the problem
of doubling the cube along with Archytas and Eudoxus, while figuring at the
same time along with Antiphon in connection with squaring the circle. Such re-
peated references are typical for any history of science. Apart from that, Eude-
mus could well have deviated from the chronological principle of organizing
the material while discussing problems that had preoccupied several gener-
ations of geometers. On the whole, however, as we see from the
Catalogue, he
proceeded from generation to generation, from teachers to their disciples,
rather than from one problem to another.
131
It is difficult, e.g., to suppose that
Eudemus should have considered together the three authors of
Elements he
mentions, rather than in chronological order. In exactly the same way, the
His-
tory of Astronomy was not organized in accordance with the problems (the
moon’s eclipses, the order of the planets, the position of the earth, and so on),
but in accordance with the
pro¯tos heurete¯s principle. Eudemus preferred the
chronological arrangement even in the
History of Theology, where much more
limited material referred to the history of one single problem, the principles of
the theologians, and easily allowed systematization by their number or type.
Since the formula prõto~ eûret2~ is found, full or abridged, in practically
every fragment of Eudemus’ works on the history of science, they can be re-
garded, in their entirety, as a detailed answer to the question: ‘who discovered
what?’. In seven of the nine fragments of the
History of Geometry that reached
us under the name of Eudemus, we find either prõto~, or eÛrhma (eÛresi~,
eûrískw
)
or both of them in combination.
132
Clear traces of this terminology
have survived in the
Catalogue as well: prõton eûr2sqai in connection with
the invention of geometry in Egypt (
In Eucl., 64.18), prõto~ and e0ren on
Thales (65.7f.), @neñre on Pythagoras (65.21), eûrøn and prõto~ on Hippo-
crates (66.4f.), eûre$n on Leon (66.22), prõto~ on Eudoxus (67.2f.), and
@neñre on Hermotimus (67. 20f.). No less revealing are those testimonies on
geometers that can be safely related to the
History of Geometry.
133
Further,
131
Heath.
Elements I, 38; Edelstein, op. cit., 95. Pappus (Coll. IV, 272.15f.) and Euto-
cius (
In Archim. De sphaer., 57.13f.), on the contrary, could consider different so-
lutions of the same problem without regard to their authors’ chronology or even their
names. See Knorr.
TS, 77ff., 213ff.
132
toñto tò qeørhma eûrhménon ûpò Qaloñ prøtou (fr. 135), eÛresi~ (fr. 136),
eûr2mata tõn Puqagoreíwn (fr. 137), Oınopídou eÛrhma (fr. 138), ˆIppo-
kráth~ kaì ^Antifõn zht2sante~ … eûr2kasin (fr. 139), ûf’ ˆIppokrátou~
ëgráfhsan prøtou (fr. 140), ^Arcútou eÛrhsi~ (fr. 141).
133
See below, 170ff. In the material on Thales, prõto~ and eÛresi~ are mentioned (In
Eucl., 250.20f.); in that on the Pythagoreans, eÛrhma (Schol. in Eucl., 273.3–13,
twice); on Oenopides, prõto~ (In Eucl., 283.7f.); on Hippocrates, prõto~ and
e0ren in Proclus (213.7f.) and prõto~ in Eratosthenes (Eutoc. In Archim. De

---

Chapter 4: The historiographical project of the Lyceum
150
prõto~ eûret2~ is mentioned in five of the seven fragments of the History of